Lv99_BixNood
fascel
★★★★★
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2017
- Posts
- 24,379
- Online time
- 5d 16h
Most blackpilled article I have ever seen, they basically acknowledge everything we're saying is true and working as intended:
While it might be uncomfortable, it is crucial to acknowledge that female emancipation required a return to the marginalization of the least sought-after men. Male marginalization, here, denotes the exclusion of men from pair-bonding and reproduction.
= incels
after the Third Sexual Revolution, we argue, explains much of why women to an increasing extent exclude the least sought-after men: they have no crucial resources to offer. In addition to women now being able to provide for themselves and have perfectly fine lives as romantically single, many nations support them with generous financial transfers. Regarding modern Scandinavia, Buss (Reference Buss2003, p. 68) concluded that “taxpayers effectively provide what husbands formerly provided, freeing women from their economic dependence on men.”
Ugly men can't betabuxx anymore because the (((state))) artificially props up women.
While the pill empowered women to pursue the most attractive men with less risk of pregnancy, apps like Tinder give them easy, practically unlimited access to the most compelling men.
Basically quoting straight from the blackpill.
The fact that women channel so much of their mating effort to such a small number of men weakens the power advantage they have from being the sexually selective sex. Strong female intrasexual competition over the most sought-after men causes the dating process to unfold more according to male preferences (Goetz et al., Reference Goetz, Weisfeld, Zilioli, Welling and Shackelford2019b; Larsen, Reference Larsen and Shackelford2023)—which can motivate women to offer sex earlier than what they themselves would prefer (Buss, Reference Buss2017; Larsen & Kennair, Reference Larsen and Kennair2025). Frequently, women’s market power on dating apps does not translate into them fulfilling their desire for a long-term partner, but instead facilitates the most attractive men acquiring dozens or even hundreds of sex partners (Figure 7).
See above.
Another possibly relevant aspect is that—from the perspective of our genes—pair-bonding is not necessarily the best option for reproduction. A benefit of short-term mating is that most women can gain access to higher-quality genes than through pair-bonding with a man of matching mate value
Roasties can get knocked up by chad but he won't marry her. Blackpill 101.
This interpretation is consistent with the literature on depression, which is often triggered by failure in courtship, relationships, or status-striving.
They even admit that inceldom alone leads to depression.
So what are their solutions to fix this?
A more extreme view is that perhaps men should not have to pay child support, particularly if experiments show that women are mostly interested in having children with the most compelling men, and those men are not willing to participate if it entails an economic downside.
chad should not have to pay child support, instead it gets paid by incel wageslaves who are themselves excluded from sex
Yes, you read that right that is their solution. Marginalize men even further so roasties can get access to chad genes





